MEPs delay new rules on dispute resolution

Legislation on dispute resolution, one of the main priorities of Denmark’s presidency of the Council of Ministers, will not be agreed before the summer, because the European Parliament is demanding more time to consider changes to the draft.

MEPs had been scheduled to start discussions on Wednesday (21 March) on reports on parallel but separate proposals on alternative and online dispute resolution (ADR and ODR). They have now decided to delay presentation of the reports until 8 May.

The postponement is a blow to Danish officials, who had been hoping to conclude a deal between the Parliament and member states before their country’s presidency ends on 31 June. The earliest that the legislation will be agreed will be during the Cypriot presidency in the second half of the year.

The Parliament’s delay is also a rejection of demands for a deal by the end of June that leaders of EU member states made at a summit on 30 January. The leaders had spoken of the value of user-friendly dispute resolution in completing the single market and promoting growth. The European Commission promoted the measures as a way of encouraging people to buy goods across borders. Officials estimate that reliable ADR procedures would save consumers €22.5 billion a year.

Changes planned

European Parliament officials say that the two MEPs working on the draft legislation – Louis Grech, a Maltese centre-left MEP, and Róz?a Thun, a Polish centre-right MEP – are planning “major changes” to the Commission’s proposals. Thun’s plans include the possible extension of ODR to cover all transactions carried out in the EU, rather than just those taking place cross-border. A vote on the MEPs’ amendments will not take place in the Parliament’s internal market and consumer-affairs committee until 10 July.

Member states’ ambassadors will hold their first discussion on the issue tomorrow (16 March) but the Parliament’s postponement means that it is unlikely the subject will feature on the agenda of the next competitiveness council, which takes place on 30-31 May.

A spokesman for the Danish presidency said that a deal had been a “high priority” but that this was no longer a realistic possibility before the end of June.

He said that Denmark “fully respected” the Parliament’s decision to seek more time.

The Commission’s proposal, made by John Dalli, the European commissioner for health and consumer policy, on 29 November, was intended to allow consumers to settle disputes without resorting to the courts. Under Dalli’s plan, consumers would be able to resolve disputes within 90 days, or, in the case of goods bought online, within 30 days.

BEUC, the European consumers’ organisation, yesterday (14 March) sent a letter to all ambassadors attending Friday’s talks, urging them not to water down the Commission’s approach. Consumer groups are particularly worried that companies’ own internal mediation processes would be deemed acceptable methods of resolution, despite not being fully independent.

“If it is to become a valuable asset in tackling consumer disputes in Europe, then ADR should be independent, and should not preclude either party from going to court if needs be,” said John Phelan, a BEUC spokesman. “We cannot set the benchmark so low as to qualify the internal complaint handling processes of companies as ADR. Third-party involvement is crucial to make it worthwhile.”